insidious violence

violence: the exertion of force with the intent to injure (physically or psychologically) or destroy. -- paraphrased from wikipedia

this morning I awoke thinking of violence & how to address it in a meaningful way.. violence needn't be the extreme exertion of physical force that first comes to mind when when approaching the idea. violence is more simply the use of power to overcome some "other."

it may not draw physical blood from it's victims. it may only metaphorically drain the life's blood from them. it can be as subtle as the need to be "right" because in doing so, one must make the other "wrong." thereby diminishing the ego (material existence) of the "other."

violence is a device of the ego to exert itself & to make itself real by drawing a forceful distinction from some other. by destroying the other or overcoming it, I have now proven my superiority & indeed my existence!

contrary to the tone of this post, I am not necessarily opposed to violence when the situation deems it appropriate. instead I am proposing only that one be aware of the impact of violence in his or her life.

I am not faint to argue a point, or to throw a punch when called for.. & I relish the ability to do it the light of day more than under the cover of darkness & ignorance.

to exert one's ego in awareness is to be alive & extends the boundaries of consciousness from a distinct perspective. to unconsciously throw punches at some imagined other is akin to being undead, a lumbering, clumsy, sleep-walking oaf.

often times I catch myself attempting to be right & it brings a smile to my heart that my ego is still plugging away in the battle with it's own existence.. with as much energy as a two-year-old's tantrums.. pushing itself out and taking no prisoners as it goes! punching holes in the fabric of time & throwing weary carcasses thru them.. lol but now I am only waxing dramatic. :P

Wage Slavery & The Cost of Ethics

Ok, so I suppose I could make some sort of very subjective ethical statement about why I am opposed to wage slavery (only in regard to myself, of course, as I think everyone has the right to make her/his own choices.)

As I understand it, chattel slavery is a condition where human beings are bought and sold as property for use at the discretion of the owner. Chattel slaves, as property have little or no say in the management of their day-to-day lives and livelihood.

Wage slavery, on the other hand is a condition where human beings sell their time to an employer in exchange for a livelihood. Once employed, the livelyhood of wage slaves is almost entirely dependent on their employer, who in effect periodically "owns" the wage slave. Wage slaves do not participate in ownership of the means of production, and are therefore not equitably compensated for their time and labor. They are instead compensated at the discretion of their employer.

The issue seems not to be one of simply selling one's time to an employer, rather it is an issue of equality, equitable compensation, ownership, and control. In the selling of blocks of time, the individuals agrees to submit to an authoritarian (unequal) employer-employee dynamic. What is the justification for the inequality? The employer owns the means of production and controls the relationship. For the agreed upon period, the employer also owns the time/labor of the wage slave. The wage slave then owns nothing and is therefore stripped of any equal footing with the employer.

One possible solution, then would be for the laborer to participate in ownership of the means of production during the period of employment and to receive equitable compensation for that participation.

All of this brings up several complex questions about ownership of private property and other means of production (land, buildings, machinery, tools, equipment, intellectual property?)

Having been conditioned through the usual Western institutions to believe that inequality of ownership is acceptable and ethical, it's difficult to navigate around this idea. Something at the core of my being tells me that we are capable of a more humane arrangement. Competing for control of scarce resources is antithetical to my primary assumption of Abundance.

If scarcity of resources is a fallacy, and Abundance is Truth, would it not be in our best interest to practice cooperation over competition. Afterall, "resources" is a very broad, and creative category that encompasses everything from land & labor, to water, air, and light. Almost any material energy, or potential energy may be considered a resource (including human beings.) There is unlimited energy, much of it untapped, and competing for such abundance is reduced to nothing more than counter-productive distraction.

That is not to say that competition does not have its place as an exercise, a way of breaking out of a staid positions, and as a way of shifting paradigms. However, adopting competition as an organizing principle for society might want to give us pause.

As for the cost of these ethics, that remains to be seen. . . a subject for follow-up.